Please help settle this debate . . .

I've always been of the opinin that for purposes of the recordkeeping requirements under 103.29 for the cash sales of monetary instruments, the purchasor had to be a human being.

In other words, even if the remitter on the check was Acme, Inc., the recordkeeping requirements covered the individual standing in front of the teller making the purchase.

The FFIEC exam manual even states that "banks are required to verify the identity of persons purchasing monetary instruments . . ." [emphasis mine] (page 95).


Am I wrong?

Yes - you are documenting the individual purchasing the instrument.

BSA defines "person" to include individuals and entities so that does not dictate that the purchaser must be an individual.

Only repetitive readings of that specific section of the regulation yields the conclusion that they are talking about identifying the individual purchaser. The remitter might be an entity, but the purchaser is an individual.

Tip: A friend of mine who does BSA compliance audits looks at official check logs and figures she has something to write about whenever she sees a check log with the name of an entity as the purchaser.

Tip II: Banks that impose restrictions on sales of monetary instruments to non deposit account holders need to word those restrictions carefully. For example, a simple statement that monetary instruments subject to record retention requirements are not sold to non customers is vague enough to create a violation if the person listed as the purchaser has no business relationship with the issuing bank.